Absolute Velocity?

[sol invictus]

"both clocks run slow as observed by the other"

You see that? Total idiocy. You could not get more stupid then that.

Yeah, Einstein and every other physicist since were real morons. Total fools. You and "Dingle", on the other hand, are geniuses for discovering this huge hole everyone else seems to have somehow overlooked.

Wow!

Hey I'll tell you what dummy. PROVE that both clocks run slower at the same time as NOT observed by eachother. Since such observation is impossible.

"as NOT observed by eachother" - ungrammatical gibberish. If you mean, prove that each observer sees the other's clock running slow, the experimental evidence for that is absolutely overwhelming.

It's Occam, and both special and general relativity pass the razor test with flying colors -

NO YOU ARE LYING. AND BEING A MORON. NOTHING COULD BE MORE STUPID THAN THAT STATEMENT.

they are extremely simple THEY CONTAIN ARBITRARY RUBBISH astonishingly elegant THATS NOT AN ARGUMENT FOR THEIR VALIDITY and they explain perfectly a gargantuan amount of experimental evidence that no other theory

THEY DON'T EXPLAIN ANYTHING. THEY ARE MERELY A TEMPLATE FOR CALCULATIONS.

All caps - that makes you MUCH more convincing.

Anyway. I've already disproved special relativity outright with the Dingle objection.

 

[GMB]

Yes yes a laughing dog. What a magnificent argument..... (not).

Now you've made an assertion. You have said that the two clocks simultaneously run slower than eachother. Lets have the empirical proof of that.

But you aren't going to give that proof. Special relativity is ridiculous and refuted outright already. So it will be an endless filibuster of laughing dog arguments from you incredibly stupid spoonbenders.

 

[shadron]

Here is an explanation of an internal contradiction of this business:

"Dingle’s Question:

University of London Professor Herbert Dingle showed why Special Relativity will always conflict with logic, no matter when we first learn it. According to the theory, if two observers are equipped with clocks, and one moves in relation to the other, the moving clock runs slower than the non-moving clock. But the Relativity principle itself (an integral part of the theory) makes the claim that if one thing is moving in a straight line in relation to another, either one is entitled to be regarded as moving. It follows that if there are two clocks, A and B, and one of them is moved, clock A runs slower than B, and clock B runs slower than A. Which is absurd.

Dingle’s Question was this: Which clock runs slow? "

That ought to be the end of the matter and no more time ought to be wasted on this disproven nonsense.

Nothing is ever the "end of the matter", especially when it conflicts with experimental evidence.

Leaving out the verdict of history on that, how do you square that with the fact that there is code in he GPS satellite scientific package which corrects for the relativistic effects on the satellite's clocks? That code is there; I had a small hand in designing and creating it.

Oh, and no assertions from your vast authority here, unless you are a Vast Authority, and can prove it.

Now you've made an assertion. ... Lets have the empirical proof of that.

Technically, what you have here is called irony. Your responses are never anything but assertions, and you haven't once, as far as I can see, ever dabbled in empiricism yourself.

 

[GMB]

The clocks do not act the way you say they do. That was special relativity propaganda. And how can you claim that anyway? Since the two clocks are supposed to run slower than eachother how can you program them to keep time?

It remains the fact that the Dingle observation disproves special relativity outright and obviously so. So don't pretend that things don't come to an end. Its only relentless filibusting by morons that keeps this wrong theory in the air.

 

[GMB]

Leaving out the verdict of history on that......

Look at the voodoo approach you are taking? Its a total outright refutation with absolutely no comeback to it. And you jibber on about some unscientific notion like "verdicts of history". What next? You going to conduct polls?

 

[sol invictus]

Now you've made an assertion. You have said that the two clocks simultaneously run slower than eachother. Lets have the empirical proof of that.

OK.

This is probably the most sensitive test. It also happens to be the most accurate experimental verification of a theory in the history of human knowledge.

But you aren't going to give that proof. Special relativity is ridiculous and refuted outright already. So it will be an endless filibuster of laughing dog arguments from you incredibly stupid spoonbenders.

 

[69dodge]

No it demonstrates a total outright refutation.

But if you think otherwise how about you prove that the two clocks run slower than eachother.

I do think otherwise.

I've explained why I think so.

I don't need to prove that the theory of relativity is true in order to show that it isn't self-contradictory. Those are two different concepts.

Do you think that it contains an internal contradiction, or do you merely think that it isn't true?

 

[GMB]

Yes yes. Laughing dog argument. Which is just you being a moron because you have no argument.

Lets have that proof that both clocks run SLOWER THAN EACHOTHER. Where is the experimental data.

 

[GMB]

I do think otherwise.

Yes. Because you are a self-selected idiot. Now lets have the proof that both clocks run slower than eachother.

There is absolutely no doubt that the Dingle refutation is total.

 

[GMB]

Sol invictus. You superstitious twit. We didn't want any wild goose chase. What we were after was the proof that two clocks run slower than eachother simultaneously. I can see that your magnificent laughing dog argument has made you lose focus.

There is no doubt that the Dingle refutation is total. Only an idiot would even so much as attempt to deny that.

 

[sol invictus]

Yes yes. Laughing dog argument. Which is just you being a moron because you have no argument.

Lets have that proof that both clocks run SLOWER THAN EACHOTHER. Where is the experimental data.

Let's see if you can find it in my post. That might be too difficult for you - it was very cleverly hidden (in your words - not!).

 

[GMB]

The only cure for this is a total cutting off of funds to these parasites. Science can only progress if these propagandists have to earn a living and actually find new knowledge. Its as if there were uri geller institutes in each town spewing out a perpetual motion machine of contradictory dogma.

The Dingle refutation is total and obviously so.

 

[GMB]

Let's see if you can find it in my post. That might be too difficult for you - it was very cleverly hidden (in your words - not!).

Its not in your post you are lying. Now lets have the actual proof of two clocks running slower than eachother. Or is that faster than eachother?

GO!!!!!!!

The Dingle refutation is total and obvious in its totality.

 

[paximperium]

Its not in your post you are lying. Now lets have the actual proof of two clocks running slower than eachother. Or is that faster than eachother?

GO!!!!!!!

The Dingle refutation is total and obvious in its totality.

Isn't it funny that GMB who claims such insight can't even find Sol's link.

 

[nathan]

Since the question cannot be answered the theory of special relativity is wrong.

You do realize the question is easily answered?

Neither clock is the slowest.

Your argument seems to be the equivalent of 'what's the sound of one hand clapping?' That can't be answered either, does it mean English is wrong?

Anyway, as I see you've devolved in to shouting, one must conclude that's all you've got.

 

[Rob Lister]

Isn't it funny that GMB who claims such insight can't even find Sol's link.

It's funny to GMB. I can't figure out why others would respond. Surely they know he's just having a fun.

 

[GMB]

The question cannot be answered the answer is ridiculous, is a contradiction, and on top of that cannot be proven. If it could be proven it would be found to be wrong.

So the Dingle refutation is total. The whole of special relativity ought to have been scrapped. Look at this thread. The matter is only kept alive via the filibuster of committed irrationalists.

The Dingle refutation is total and manifest in its totality.

 

[GMB]

Isn't it funny that GMB who claims such insight can't even find Sol's link.

Well clearly you are just lying. I found the link. And no proof that the two clocks run slower than each-other was in it. It was merely a diversionary tactic from an idiot.

The Dingle refutation is total. Which is why you dummies have been ineffectual in the face of it.

 

[tim]

GMB, tone it down. Insulting other posters does not further your argument. Remain polite.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: tim

 

[sol invictus]

Well clearly you are just lying. I found the link. And no proof that the two clocks run slower than each-other was in it. It was merely a diversionary tactic from an idiot.

The Dingle refutation is total. Which is why you dummies have been ineffectual in the face of it.

For the benefit of anyone possessing a cerebral cortex that might happen to read this thread, I'll elaborate slightly.

Special relativity is not exactly a theory - it's a claim about the world, namely that the laws of physics posses a symmetry known as Lorentz invariance. Part of Lorentz invariance is rotation invariance - the statement that the laws of physics are rotationally invariant - meaning, if you build an experimental apparatus and (for simplicity) imagine it floating out in interstellar space somewhere far from anything else, the results you obtain from it will not depend on which direction it's oriented.

The other part of Lorentz invariance is boost invariance - the statement that the laws of physics are invariant under changes of inertial reference frame (i.e. changes in velocity). That in turn implies that the structure of spacetime is non-Newtonian: time is not absolute, it "rotates" partially into space under boosts. As a result, the simultaneity of events is not an absolute quantity (any more than the relative orientation of something is), and neither are lengths of time (any more than angles are).

The paper I linked to is a test of part of the fundamental laws of nature according to a Lorentz invariant theory. The experimental result agrees with theory to about 13 significant figures (which is the experimental uncertainty). That doesn't prove nature is Lorentz invariant (such a thing is impossible in science), but it does mean that if it is not, the deviations from Lorentz invariance are at most one part in trillions.

Special relativity is an integral part of the best tested theories in the history of mankind. There is literally nothing more certain in the physical world.